One home ground

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?

 

[TrueTiger]

It would be great if SFS becomes our home base and we play 1 at LO and 1 at CSS each year,however the money we get from playing at other stadiums atm is whats keeping the books reasonably balanced...This would be my personal outcome to have a big new stadium to call home,but the powers that be have to keep their negotiation pants tightly belted,otherwise they could end up with their pants pulled down....it will take smarts to end up with a favourable outcome to suit all and sundry....this is a discussion that can take many twists and turns...lets all hope that we the WTs can eventually have 1 ground as a home base and increase revenue to make up for what we wont get from other stadiums....

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?

That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

 

[Tiger5150]

It would be great if SFS becomes our home base and we play 1 at LO and 1 at CSS each year,however the money we get from playing at other stadiums atm is whats keeping the books reasonably balanced...This would be my personal outcome to have a big new stadium to call home,but the powers that be have to keep their negotiation pants tightly belted,otherwise they could end up with their pants pulled down....it will take smarts to end up with a favourable outcome to suit all and sundry....this is a discussion that can take many twists and turns...lets all hope that we the WTs can eventually have 1 ground as a home base and increase revenue to make up for what we wont get from other stadiums....

The SFS has the same owners as ANZ and Bankwest.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Mate it’s a public monopoly not a private monopoly. The NSW government isn’t trying to stuff the clubs over they just want to make people (voters) happy. Walking into the negotiating meeting with a gun to your head saying you will be happy to play at falling apart stadia if they don’t give you a good deal is just absurd. ***The government is giving the club $70m to build the COE*** with zero commercial return. They just want to make voters happy.

The government is not giving the club $70M to build a CEO. Canada Bay is building a community facility, for the community, owned by Canada Bay Council. Funding has come from Federal, State and Canada Bay Council. Tigers have paid to be the tenant. Tigers have no ownership or equity.

https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/council/vision-and-projects/major-development-projects/redevelopment-of-concord-oval

? So the COE was going to be built anyway and Tigers just showed up as the tenant?

Ofcourse not. Barry O and James P lobbied all levels of government for funding to go toward the COE. It’s not an asset on the clubs balance sheet but why would they want that, would be a poor use of capital. Rather the “government” has funded and constructed a purpose built building and training ground for specific use of the West’s Tigers.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Mate it’s a public monopoly not a private monopoly. The NSW government isn’t trying to stuff the clubs over they just want to make people (voters) happy. Walking into the negotiating meeting with a gun to your head saying you will be happy to play at falling apart stadia if they don’t give you a good deal is just absurd. ***The government is giving the club $70m to build the COE*** with zero commercial return. They just want to make voters happy.

The government is not giving the club $70M to build a CEO. Canada Bay is building a community facility, for the community, owned by Canada Bay Council. Funding has come from Federal, State and Canada Bay Council. Tigers have paid to be the tenant. Tigers have no ownership or equity.

https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/council/vision-and-projects/major-development-projects/redevelopment-of-concord-oval

? So the COE was going to be built anyway and Tigers just showed up as the tenant?

Ofcourse not. Barry O and James P lobbied all levels of government for funding to go toward the COE. It’s not an asset on the clubs balance sheet but why would they want that, would be a poor use of capital. Rather the “government” has funded and constructed a purpose built building and training ground for specific use of the West’s Tigers.

Did the Government give the Wests Tigers $70M to build a CEO?

 

[gallagher]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

Mate it’s a public monopoly not a private monopoly. The NSW government isn’t trying to stuff the clubs over they just want to make people (voters) happy. Walking into the negotiating meeting with a gun to your head saying you will be happy to play at falling apart stadia if they don’t give you a good deal is just absurd. ***The government is giving the club $70m to build the COE*** with zero commercial return. They just want to make voters happy.

The government is not giving the club $70M to build a CEO. Canada Bay is building a community facility, for the community, owned by Canada Bay Council. Funding has come from Federal, State and Canada Bay Council. Tigers have paid to be the tenant. Tigers have no ownership or equity.

https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/council/vision-and-projects/major-development-projects/redevelopment-of-concord-oval

? So the COE was going to be built anyway and Tigers just showed up as the tenant?

Ofcourse not. Barry O and James P lobbied all levels of government for funding to go toward the COE. It’s not an asset on the clubs balance sheet but why would they want that, would be a poor use of capital. Rather the “government” has funded and constructed a purpose built building and training ground for specific use of the West’s Tigers.


Did the Government give the Wests Tigers $70M to build a CEO?

The government paid $70m to build the COE for west’s tigers. I don’t get why this has to be an exercise in trolling.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.

OF course. This is my whole point of wading into this thread. IMO it is ridiculous to demand ONE HOME GROUND unless it can be proven that it is a real and tangible benefit to the club and fans. Feel good motherhood statements dont count. OK you write off as "hearsay" what a family friend and board member told me but IMO its the truth that the current arrangement is the best financially for the club and it also makes some fans happy.

If in the process it is shown that there are REAL tangible benefits to the club to be all in at ANZ, SFS, or BW, then happy days, but it may be benefit for some blend as it is now...not just for WT but for Venues NSW as well.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.


OF course. This is my whole point of wading into this thread. IMO it is ridiculous to demand ONE HOME GROUND unless it can be proven that it is a real and tangible benefit to the club and fans. Feel good motherhood statements dont count. OK you write off as "hearsay" what a family friend and board member told me but IMO its the truth that the current arrangement is the best financially for the club and it also makes some fans happy.

If in the process it is shown that there are REAL tangible benefits to the club to be all in at ANZ, SFS, or BW, then happy days, but it may be benefit for some blend as it is now...not just for WT but for Venues NSW as well.

What’s beneficial for venues NSW isn’t necessarily whats best for West’s Tigers. Why do we have to fill the gaps in stadia that no one else is using that weekend? Why can’t we just look at every single successful club in every sport everywhere in the whole world and see that they all play at a single home ground an surmise that it’s the best model rather than listen to a WT board member who is talking his own book?

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.


OF course. This is my whole point of wading into this thread. IMO it is ridiculous to demand ONE HOME GROUND unless it can be proven that it is a real and tangible benefit to the club and fans. Feel good motherhood statements dont count. OK you write off as "hearsay" what a family friend and board member told me but IMO its the truth that the current arrangement is the best financially for the club and it also makes some fans happy.

If in the process it is shown that there are REAL tangible benefits to the club to be all in at ANZ, SFS, or BW, then happy days, but it may be benefit for some blend as it is now...not just for WT but for Venues NSW as well.

Sorry but I can’t let you get away with that. Under the current contracts yes you are correct.

That does not mean in any way shape or form that has to be the case moving forward. It is most likely that we will have one home ground and play one game out of LO and CSS when the stadium contracts are re-negotiated. There is no reason this could not benefit the Wests Tigers greatly, both financially and as an improved supporter base game day experience.

 

[cochise]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

>
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..

Lol, my wife almost got refused entry over a bottle of water on Sunday

 

[hobbo1]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

>
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..

Lol, my wife almost got refused entry over a bottle of water on Sunday

Probably vodka ?
Be honest !

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

>
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..

Lol, my wife almost got refused entry over a bottle of water on Sunday

Probably vodka ?
Be honest !

Would’ve needed it after that first half performance.

 

[cochise]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.


I have a membership, thanks very much. The day trippers for one day a year, yeah sure.


I keep hearing how "derelict" the old girl is. I sit on the "concourse" in front of the grandstand and I swear there is no better seating in RL. Easy walk to a huge clean toilet, food and beer. Genuinely not sure what Im missing out on and what needs to be improved.

I have the best seats in football at LO, I'm in bay 8 where are you mate?

 

[hobbo1]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

>
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..

Lol, my wife almost got refused entry over a bottle of water on Sunday

Probably vodka ?
Be honest !

Would’ve needed it after that first half performance.

I loved what Geo’s mrs said ?
Gold

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.


OF course. This is my whole point of wading into this thread. IMO it is ridiculous to demand ONE HOME GROUND unless it can be proven that it is a real and tangible benefit to the club and fans. Feel good motherhood statements dont count. OK you write off as "hearsay" what a family friend and board member told me but IMO its the truth that the current arrangement is the best financially for the club and it also makes some fans happy.

If in the process it is shown that there are REAL tangible benefits to the club to be all in at ANZ, SFS, or BW, then happy days, but it may be benefit for some blend as it is now...not just for WT but for Venues NSW as well.

***Sorry but I can’t let you get away with that. Under the current contracts yes you are correct.***

That does not mean in any way shape or form that has to be the case moving forward. It is most likely that we will have one home ground and play one game out of LO and CSS when the stadium contracts are re-negotiated. There is no reason this could not benefit the Wests Tigers greatly, both financially and as an improved supporter base game day experience.

Im not getting away with anything and I literally said the same thing as you, that if it turns out the best in negotiations that we go to one home ground, then happy days. We have already covered this. All we can talk about is the current situation and contracts.

That is the whole point. It is ridiculous to state NO MATTER WHAT......ONE HOME GROUND if we dont even know what the commercial opportunities and realities are. WE could be worse off. We could be better off....the situation could be the same as now.

Im all for having one home ground as an option, but I would like a real reason for it being better than the current situation, not motherhood statements. Its not currently and no one knows what the situation will be in the future.

 

[Geo]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?


Nonsense. That's very one dimensional thinking. It's not about competition it's about how you both benefit. Even monopolies will listen if it is to their advantage.

Free market negotiations are not about competition? What advantage would the Tigers offer to them? Tigers are in competition with at least Bulldogs, Parra and Roosters and Stadium NSW have zero competition. Seems a pretty one sided negotiation.


I'm pretty good, I got a four year interest free deal from the manufacture for my last car.... I didn't even have to pay a deposit. It was a very interesting conversation.. lol

Im sure you are a stunning negotiator. It helps when you always have the option to walk out of the room and go to another dealer or a different make. Imagine sitting that room with no options and the salesman knows it?

I cant believe we are even discussing it. It makes zero sense.

**Clearly this conversation is now going around in circles**. You have your opinion on this matter and I have mine. It looks like never the twain shall meet. We are at opposite poles. That’s just the way it is sometimes.

So the roundabout..

Told ya's

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.


I have a membership, thanks very much. The day trippers for one day a year, yeah sure.


I keep hearing how "derelict" the old girl is. I sit on the "concourse" in front of the grandstand and I swear there is no better seating in RL. Easy walk to a huge clean toilet, food and beer. Genuinely not sure what Im missing out on and what needs to be improved.

I have the best seats in football at LO, I'm in bay 8 where are you mate?

Ha!!!! Bay 8

 

[mike]

Lets be honest. Fans that want to play at LO or CSS are just fans of the old clubs or live close to those venues.

Foxtel $70 a month for 32 games plus I have my personal chef in the kitchen ?

Seriously though ..
I’m 80km from Leichhardt and it’s usually a great day out ..
I don’t understand the whingers that piss and moan about the facilities because they can’t hold there bladders .
Have lunch or whatever before you go ..
Piss on before you go ..
Take in pre mixed drinks or cans in your pockets ..
Relieve yourself before you go ..
The game goes for 80 friggin minutes ?

If the old girl and CSS are to see lesser games in the future I’d like to see
8 games at either ANZ or SFS
2 at Leichhardt
2 at CSS
This should please the folks that suffer from incontinence .

8 at one ground would be better.

I said either !
And it’s easy for you to whinge cause you live in WA ?

I get the irony as I don't get to games. But my view is unbiased because of that.


Ever been to Leichhardt on a Sunday arvo?


All the time. A packed hill looks great on TV. Even played many games there in my youth. It's a derelict sad place these days. If it could be redeveloped.... but it won't be, so I am a realist.


Splash out on a membership, leave the hill to day trippers.

It’s sad mate you’ve succumbed to the big corporates ..


I sell out at every opportunity....

It reality the game is made for TV.

Only only long weekends like Easter and Anzac Day do we get bumper crowds in the regular season .

Panthers are flying high and they don’t seem to have to move games to accommodate more than 20 thousand
fans .

But use 1 ground. Just need to pick one. Eenie meenie minnie moe will do.


At the risk of repeating myself........WHY?

Give a reason.

If we had ALL our games at ANZ or Bankwest, we make less money and annoy the punters who like LO & CSS. If we had all of our games at LO or CSS we would make less money and we would lose Mike.

To me the current situation is the most sensible but others disagree, because of...........feelings?

I disagree we make less money. I believe we would build our supporter base and corp support. You can't give facts that prove we make more money this way.


I was told to my face by a WT board member (I cant prove this obviously) but if you go back a few pages, someone posted a good and pretty accurate break up of revenue and cost for all grounds.

The point is Stadiums NSW pay us $100K (will be going down in the near future) to use their grounds based on the understanding that we will NOT play our lowest drawing games there because they result in a loss to Stadium NSW. If we increase the number of games that result in a loss for the owner, what do you think happens to the money they pay us?

All hearsay. Also don't know that it will be going down in the future, it would be up for negotiation. That is an assumption you have made to support your position. The future commercial arrangements could very well be in Wests Tigers favour. We don't know yet.

Yes the future commercial arrangements should play a big part in which home ground is chosen.


I am not discussing future commercial arrangement, Im discussing current and it is exactly as Im telling you. Yes I cant prove what this board member told me but it remains a fact that if we play the loss making clubs at ANZ, there is less money.

What market factors are pushing up prices for the stadia? COVID? Increasing streaming of games? Monopoly ownership of stadia?

Nothing will change until the current commercial agreements are completed. I'm taking about what we do after those arrangements have finished.


So you are suggesting we should have one home ground regardless of the future commercial arrangements? That is insane, the decision would have to be made based on what the commercial opportunities are.

All we can discuss is based on the current deals.

Nonsense. We can decide we have one home ground and then negotiate an appropriate deal moving forward. Depending on how the negotiations go may very well determine the home ground. Have all your home games in one location would be a very good negotiation point.


Curious how deciding to have all of your games in the one location and removing all other options would be a "good negotiating point" when the entity that you are negotiating with holds a monopoly of the suitable "one locations"? That would be an interesting case study in business negotiation..."Yes sir, let me make this CLEAR! I have absolutely ZERO options other than to agree to use your product and no alternatives......but I want your BEST price...do you hear me?!?!"

That is exactly what sent the Bears broke.

An actual good negotiation point would be to threaten to have all of your games at LO & CSS, then you actually have something to negotiate with. It would make sense in the lead up to negotiations with Stadium NSW to add an extra LO and CSS game.

So all games at one location, as long as it's your location ... OK


What you are saying makes no sense. I didnt say or suggest all games at any location or my location. Im trying to work out how removing all other options would be a "great negotiation point" when the entity you are negotiating with holds a monopoly on the grounds you now HAVE to use. How is that a good tactic?

Pretty poor actually unless you are prepared to implement it.


Seriously, you need to explain this. Stadium NSW hold a monopoly. Telling them that are all in at one of their grounds no matter what would have to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

If you went into negotiations with the premise that you would take games to LO and CSS if they didn't do a deal, they would be laughing at you from across the table. Telling you to come back when you are serious.


No it would be a negotiation. They would say we would pay you $X, we could say we will move more games to LO & CSS unless we get more and it would be possible to negotiate middle ground.

Saying to a supplier ***who holds the monopoly on the thing you you are buying***..."We have no alternative but to buy the thing you are selling and there is no one else we can get it from" is going to result in VERY short negotiations and it will not result in a better deal for the Tigers.

Sure whatever you think then.


Mate Im VERY happy to be wrong and Id be happy for you to explain to me how removing all competition from a competitive tender process would work in our favour.

If you tell the councils and the state govt your gonna choose one , then that would be a very strong tender process. No?


Yes......**IF** the providers of whatever you are purchasing are in competition with each other.

If there is NO competition, like in the case of Stadium NSW and they hold a monopoly and you have no possibility of purchasing what you need from anyone else, then it is a VERY weak position and the club will be bent over.

If you go to a car dealer and you say to him " I HAVE to buy this car from you today and I can not buy it from anyone else, or any other model". What discount do you think you are going to get?

What monopoly? Theyre up against 2 councils.


Enlighten me, which two councils own ANZ and Bankwest...or SFS?

I meant Campbelltown and the council that owns Leichhardt. You tell those three parties (state govt the 3rd) that your going to play at one home ground. No tender competitiveness going on there?

Can you drop that garbage like 'enlighten me'?


The whole discussion with Mike regarding monopolies and competition was about his idea to go to Stadium NSW and as part of the negotiation process announce that we are definitely dropping LO & CSS and will be making one of their Stadia our home.

Stadium NSW hold a complete monopoly on remaining viable stadia in that situation and Tigers have zero competitive options. I cant see how that is a strong negotiation ploy.

Ok. How about our discussion?


Our discussion was about the merits of just one home ground against the current situation, nothing to do with monopolies or competition. I dont see the link?

Tender competitiveness between Campbo council, Balmain? Council and the state govt to get all our games. That would exist wouldn't it? A strong tender?


That is exactly the point I made to Mike, that you need the competition of the other options. Sure the options are probably not strong but there has to be at least competition. (its Inner West Council)

Options in the tender process to get one ground.


OF course. This is my whole point of wading into this thread. IMO it is ridiculous to demand ONE HOME GROUND unless it can be proven that it is a real and tangible benefit to the club and fans. Feel good motherhood statements dont count. OK you write off as "hearsay" what a family friend and board member told me but IMO its the truth that the current arrangement is the best financially for the club and it also makes some fans happy.

If in the process it is shown that there are REAL tangible benefits to the club to be all in at ANZ, SFS, or BW, then happy days, but it may be benefit for some blend as it is now...not just for WT but for Venues NSW as well.

***Sorry but I can’t let you get away with that. Under the current contracts yes you are correct.***

That does not mean in any way shape or form that has to be the case moving forward. It is most likely that we will have one home ground and play one game out of LO and CSS when the stadium contracts are re-negotiated. There is no reason this could not benefit the Wests Tigers greatly, both financially and as an improved supporter base game day experience.

Im not getting away with anything. We have already covered this. All we can talk about is the current situation and contracts.

That is the whole point. It is ridiculous to state NO MATTER WHAT......ONE HOME GROUND if we dont even know what the commercial opportunities and realities are. WE could be worse off. We could be better off....the situation could be the same as now.

Im all for having one home ground as an option, but I would like a real reason for it being better than the current situation, not motherhood statements. Its not currently and no one knows what the situation will be in the future.

Again nonsense. We can absolutely discuss the future and what that might look like.

It sounds like the only criteria you have for the future is the financial benefit. Is that correct? Are there other criteria that also needs to be considered that we can discuss?